04/03/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

Theresa May's big Brexit speech

appears to have done the impossible

and united both sides

of her party for the time being

but is the devil in the detail?

We'll get the verdicts of former

Tory leader and Brexit supporter

Lord Howard and leading backbencher

and Remain campaigner Nicky Morgan,

and ask if they can

really both be happy.

Away from Brexit, the Government yet

again promises to take on the Nimbys

and build more houses

where we need them most.

We'll go

through the proposals in detail.

In London, with 1 million EU

citizens eligible to vote,

will the local elections

in the capital become

a referendum on Brexit?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today, I've got three

hardy souls who've struggled

through the harsh conditions

to help me to make sense of all

the big stories - Isabel Oakeshott,

Steve Richards and Anushka Asthana.

Well, it was as week where politics

was often given second billing

to the weather, with people up

and down the country battling

the Beast from the East.

But snow or not, Theresa May had her

crucial Brexit speech to give,

and she had a few big beasts herself

to contend with.

Forget the weather, the UK faced

a Brexit blizzard this week.

On Monday, Jeremy Corbyn offered up

a clear dividing line between Labour

and the Conservatives.

Labour would keep Britain

in a customs union with the EU.

Labour would seek to negotiate

a new, comprehensive UK EU customs

union to ensure there are no

tariffs with Europe.

On Tuesday, international

trade secretary Liam Fox

immediately hit back.

It would be a complete sell-out

of Britain's national interest

and a betrayal of the voters

in the referendum.

But his speech was overshadowed

by a warning shot from the former

boss of his own department -

Sir Martin Donnelly said leaving

the single market and the customs

union would risk the UK

going from feast to famine.

It's like giving up a three course

meal for a packet of crisps.

Also on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson took to the radio

waves to try to ease tensions

on Northern Ireland after Brexit.

He wasn't entirely persuasive.

There's no border between

Camden and Westminster.

You can't compare two boroughs

of London with the kind

of difference in the arrangements

that would be in place after Brexit

between the UK and the EU.

I think it's a very

relevant comparison.

On Wednesday, former

Prime Minister Sir John Major said

MPs should be given a free vote

on the final Brexit deal.

So let Parliament decide or put

the issue back to the people.

And the EU Commission published

the first legal draft

of the UK's exit treaty.

The proposals were controversial.

To avoid a hard border,

Northern Ireland must stay

in the customs union

if all else fails.

Theresa May was having none of it.

No UK Prime Minister

could ever agree to it.

On Thursday, diplomatic niceties

with the European Council

President Donald Tusk,

as he got a preview of the Prime

Minister's big Brexit speech.

But the real test would come later,

when she would need a lot

of grit to keep all members

of her own party onside.

The big day arrived,

and with it some hard truths.

We are leaving the single market.

Life is going to be different.

In certain ways, our access to each

other's markets will be

less than it is now.

Even after we have

left the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice,

EU law and the decisions of the ECJ

will continue to affect us.

This was also a pitch

for a pick and mix Brexit.

She said all EU trade deals

are tailor-made and what Britain

wants is no different.

If this is cherry picking,

then every trade arrangement

is cherry picking.

He was happy, and so was he.

Despite being stranded

and left out in the cold.

So, has the Prime Minister managed

to thaw the tensions

between her Cabinet on Brexit?

Time will tell.

There is more than enough to chew

over with our expert panel who will

tell us what's been going on behind

the scenes this week. Anushka, we

asked the question, has she achieved

the impossible and United warring

factions of the Conservative Party

over Brexit? It looks that way, will

it stay that way?

It is impressive

politically that your guests will

both have some praise for the speech

but it doesn't mean they agree with

each other when it comes to Brexit.

I'm sure there's a lot they continue

to disagree about. She managed to do

that by doubling down on the red

lines she already had but saying

beyond that we will try to get as

close as we can to the EU. I don't

think the Brexiteers are totally

happy, they see this as a staging

post and happy that what she said

future parliaments can change it.

She has done a magic trick now but

trouble ahead still.

Isabel, a lot

of it was how in the immediate

future we will stay tangibly similar

to EU rules and regulations, that

won't hold with the Brexiteer crowd,

will it?

Only an idiot would predict

peace and harmony within the Tory

party for more than a few days.

party for more than a few days. I

think they recognise the immense

discipline the Prime Minister

injected into the speech, in some

ways that means bits of it don't

please everybody. There was

frustration at the way she handled

some of the questions afterwards.

Some would have liked her, for

example Nigel Farage, outside of the

party of course, would have liked

her to be more explicit that no deal

remains an option. On the other

hand, had she said that, that is

provocative. I think Tory MPs found

she struck a balance and a great

feeling of positivity this weekend,

maybe not next.

Steve, did it tell

us a huge amount about what Brexit

deal might look like? Or is Theresa

May sitting on the fence about what

the future deal will be?

I don't

think she is sitting on the fence.

She gave a clear idea of what she

envisages it to be. Watching it, and

reading it several times, I have

reached the conclusion that she is

the only person that can lead this

party.

You have Michael Howard on in a

minute, you knows how difficult it

is to do. She can do it and I think

they would be daft to get rid of

her. However, having read the

speech, it is full of unexploded

bombs metaphorically speaking. Like

the budgets that go down well on the

day and then turn out to have hidden

bombs, I think this one does. In her

admission we are giving up things,

we won't have the same market

access, in saying we have given up

passporting for the financial

services already. She did it to show

we weren't having our cake and

eating it, she was honest, but it is

depressing to have that candour

explained so clearly. And in

explaining we will be fully aligned

with the EU in many ways but have

the right to diverged even if it is

against our interest. And the all of

this, to have the right to diverge

at a future date seems fraught with

difficulty. I see problems down

road.

Steve's point about only this

Prime Minister can lead the party is

a very astute one and that's what

I'm picking up this weekend, even

from those who have been her

harshest critics, at her ability not

to say too much which makes her seem

rather boring at times is precisely

the reason she can manage these

delicate factions. I definitely feel

time has run out now for those who

would like to have seen her gone

well before Brexit next year. I feel

that has evaporated milk. We might

be in a different place in a few

months but I would suspect not.

Anushka bitchy answer the question

about the border between the

Republic and Northern Ireland? Simon

Coveney said he's not sure the EU

can support the plan she came up

with.

Both sides can smile and say

they don't want a border, the

question is how you achieve that.

The Government have put forward

these options, a customs partnership

which is a slightly weird system

under which there would be checks on

the UK border that would then be

acceptable for the rest of the EU.

The problem is the rest of the EU

have suggested that won't be

acceptable to them, and even very

senior figures in Government around

the Cabinet table have told me they

think it is a completely unrealistic

option. The second option is to use

technology to make it flow freely,

perhaps not quite as Boris

perhaps not quite as Boris Johnson

was suggesting, it happens in the

congestion charge in London. He was

slightly mocked for those comments,

but can there be a way to make it

softer in that way? Perhaps there

can but there is no evidence you

would end up with no border. Then

there's that tricky situation of the

EU saying the backstop is Northern

Ireland stays in the customs union,

and the Prime Minister says that is

unacceptable.

Thank you for that,

stay with us.

Theresa May was on the

Andrew Marr Show this

morning, and she was asked how

the UK's rules and regulations

might move away from

the EU's in the future.

Parliament will be able to take

decisions about the rules that

are set, so in the circumstances

in which the EU

change a particular rule,

there'd be a decision

for us to take.

Did we accept it

in the future or not?

But if we didn't accept it,

there'd be an arbitration mechanism,

an independent arbitration

mechanism, so people

would look at it and say,

actually, you know what,

if the UK doesn't accept that,

does it make any difference

to the trading relationship?

And they might say no, it doesn't,

so there's no consequence.

They might say yes, it does,

and so there would be a consequence.

So you're saying we might

lose market access -

the more we diverge,

the more market access

we might lose in the future.

There'd be a decision to be taken.

Joining me now from

Loughborough is the former

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan,

who put her name down on a Commons

amendment that calls for the UK

to participate in a customs union

with the EU after Brexit.

Good morning. So you heard the Prime

Minister ruling out a customs union

which is what you say you want, and

they will be less access to EU

markets in future, you cannot be

very happy with this speech, can

you?

I thought it was a very

realistic speech that set out the

compromises and hard facts we have

to face, and I think it was a

welcome dose of realism. That's why

I think it has been welcomed from

people on all sides of the debate

because we can get away from

pretending things will stay the

same, that we can have the same

benefits, and be honest with

ourselves and our constituents about

what that means. The reason MPs put

down amendments is to get ministers

to explain their position is more

fully and that's what we began to

see in the Prime Minister's speech

on this issue of the border between

Northern Ireland, the Republic of

Ireland on Friday. The Prime

Minister could not have been more

clear this morning and last week

that she does not want to see a hard

border between them, and that's

where we are as well. I think there

are more discussions to come about

the two options, as Anushka was

setting out, that the Prime Minister

outlined, and we will have to see

what happens when the bill comes

back to the House of Commons.

Your

amendment wasn't just about Northern

Ireland, it said you want the UK to

stay in the customs union with the

EU. Now you say you want to talk to

the Prime Minister about this. Talk

about what? We are either in the

customs union or knots and her

speech made it clear she didn't want

a customs union.

I can speak for

myself and my colleagues, many of

whom put their name down, it was

about the Irish border issue because

many of us got to the stage of

thinking how can this be resolved

without being in a customs union. I

think many of us don't care what it

is called, it's a question of what

it does. Does it avoid a hard border

and small traders having to make

declarations each time they crossed

the border? I was a Treasury duties

minister, I visited the Irish border

and it is 300 miles of incredibly

porous countryside basically. People

are crossing it everyday for work,

for trading, and it's not just about

the economics, it's about the

cultural and political significance

of not a hard border.

The Irish

government and Irish Foreign

Minister Simon Coveney were saying

this morning he didn't think EU

would accept this. Theresa May said

a long she doesn't want a hard

border, just saying that doesn't

mean it won't happen and the EU

don't seem satisfied with what she

laid out as a possible solution.

The

first point is, as I said in a tweet

on Friday, the EU cannot say and

Simon Coveney recognise that this

morning, the EU cannot say it

doesn't know what the UK Government

wants. Simon Coveney also agreed, as

the Prime Minister rightly set out,

this is a problem that has been

created by Brexit and it's up to the

UK Government, the EU and Irish

government to work together to find

a solution. I think it is right that

talks will continue in one of those

areas where it is best for the Irish

government and UK Government to be

talking directly because at the

moment what's been remarkable is how

cohesive the 27 have been in

negotiating through the commission

but there may be ways to speed up

discussions, particularly on the

Irish border issue. What we saw on

Friday is the Prime Minister saying

there's difficult things ahead.

People won't remember ultimately the

negotiations, they will remember the

enduring deal that's struck, that

puts livelihoods and economic

security first.

One of the hard fact is that she

laid out is we will have less access

to EU markets. That is one of the

things that you as a Remainer have

been worried about. Maybe she is

being pragmatic and you're welcome

that, but is that pragmatism not

admitting were going to be worse off

in future as a result of this?

I

think it probably is. Actually,

while the speech was well come in

its towns, it did set out some of

these hard truths. Some people have

said, nothing will change, it will

have exactly the same benefits but

that is not the case. I am chair of

the Treasury Select Committee, we

look at financial services. That

industry understands that things are

going to change. The Prime Minister

was clear, no more passporting.

People have reconciled themselves to

this in the city. What next? The

Prime Minister is talking about

mutual recognition of regulations,

that is the way to go, that is

achievable, but this is the start of

negotiations and it is a long way to

go. At least we are now on the

starting blocks. Your right to say

that many of us have been concerned

about the prosperity and livelihoods

of people in our constituencies and

our businesses. We welcome this

speech but we will continue to watch

out for any drifting backwards

towards some kind of idea logically

driven hard Brexit. That does not

benefit anybody. As the Prime

Minister said on Friday, reverting

to WTO is not a good outcome that

will benefit people in this country.

The Prime Minister made clear that

the UK after Brexit can choose to

stay aligned with the rules and

regulations of the EU or future

parliaments to choose to diverged.

In those circumstances you will be

fighting every step of the week to

try to stay aligned with the EU, I

take it?

Not necessarily. That was a

really well come statement from the

Prime Minister. It is for the

sovereign parliament to be making

these decisions in future, which is

why we had the debate over the

amendment in December because

ultimately it should be sovereign

Parliament that makes these key

decisions in the future. In terms of

divergences regulation, there may

well be good arguments in the future

by businesses and industry say, we

do not need to be aligned with that

regulation, because there is a

higher international standard that

we can all get around and following

that will benefit our businesses.

The point is, at the moment,

Parliament will take decisions about

things on the basis of listening to

constituents, and that is what will

happen in the future. That is

welcome. Financial services, that is

the message we're getting by, there

are some international standards,

which is what business already

comply with, higher standards than

the EU, and that is what businesses

want to on complying with.

Nicky

Morgan, thank you for talking to us.

Listening to that is the former

Conservative leader Lord Howard,

who campaigned for Britain

to leave the EU.

You were nodding away in agreement

with Nicky Morgan all the way

through that interview. Not

something we thought we were going

to see happen in the studio.

You

agree with her? I agree with very

much of what she said and I am

delighted to be able to agree with

her. Can I just say this about the

speech on Friday, I thought it

should the Prime Minister at her

best, cam, patient, disciplined.

That is exactly the kind of approach

we need in these negotiations. I

think Steve Richards was right when

he said she is the only person who

can lead the country through these

negotiations, and she showed her

qualities on Friday, and I think it

was an excellent speech, and it is

something, of course it is a good

thing from my point of view that it

seems to have united the

Conservative Party, but more

importantly, I think it has united

the country. I think everyone in the

country, except perhaps those few

people are neither extreme, can

rally round. People like John Major

and Tony Blair? I fear that on this

issue John Major and Tony Blair are

to make love the people who have

never been able to reconcile

themselves to the results of the

referendum. I think a large majority

of people in the country, even of

those who voted Remain, they now

say, let's get on with it and see

what we can get out of these

negotiations. Nicky Morgan was

absolutely right when she said that

in years to come people will not be

looking back at the negotiations.

They will be looking back at the

outcome.

The negotiations matter

because they determine the outcome.

You like the tone of the speech.

When you look at the detail, does it

really amounted taking back control

when the Prime Minister says the UK

will need to make a strong

commitment that regulatory standards

will remain as high as the EU and in

practice they will remain similar in

the future?

That is not what you

campaign for. In many respects they

will be similar. As the Prime

Minister said this morning, on the

Andrew Marr programme, these

regulations are not EU regulations,

the international regulations. The

crucial thing is that our sovereign

parliament, in future, will be able

to decide whether we remain in a

layman, which in many cases would be

a sensible thing to do, or whether

we diverged, which could also be

sensible. That is what taking back

control means.

The sovereign

parliament will decide. Look at

where we do remain in alignment and

a hard fact that Theresa May picked

out there, in order to maintain

access we may have to maintain a

layman. The EU will change their

rules over the next few deals --

over the next few years. We will end

up having to mirror rules that we

had no say at all in making if we

want to maintain access.

That is not

control. We will be able to decide.

In some cases it may be sensible to

change rules to remain in alignment

with the European Union's rules but

in other cases it will not be, and

we will be able to decide. That is

what taking back control means.

You're perfectly happy with

associated membership of some of the

EU agencies, medicine, chemicals,

the aviation safety agency, and with

paying a fee to be -- to be a

member. Very sensible. A year ago

you would not have been telling us

that you wanted to stay a member of

any of these agents is a tall.

You

never ask me. You would have been

surprised by the answer. These are

sensible, practical arrangements

that we benefit from, and the EU

benefits.

It is sensible. We were

promised famously by David Davis

that we would have the exact same

benefits of being in the customs

union and the single market after

Brexit. The Prime Minister herself

said something similar. Now she's

telling us we will have less access.

When people were told we could leave

the EU and maintain the same

benefits, were they being lied to?

Not at all. I think it is a

consequence of what the Prime

Minister has said, that in all

important respects, we will have the

access we need. There may be some

areas where that will not be the

case, but she dealt with the most

important aspect in her speech on

Friday and should have in the most

important areas we will be able to

have access. I think that will be

the outcome. It is in the interests

of the European Union as well as

ourselves that that should be so.

They want access to our large

market. We are one of the six

biggest economies in the world. They

want access to our markets. It will

be on both our interest to reach

that sort of agreement.

Both wings

of the Tory party might be happy

with this. The speech was received

less enthusiastically in Brussels.

The EU will publish their draft

guidelines on how they see a future

deal on Tuesday. If they do not

accept the approach that Theresa May

has laid out, what should she do

next?

Let's concentrate on the

positives. We are in a negotiation.

There will inevitably be posturing

by the European Union in the course

of these negotiations. That is what

negotiations always bring with them.

But I think, as I say, it is in both

our interest that we should have a

good deal. At the end of the day,

they want our money. They will not

get our money unless there is a good

deal.

It has been said that a trade

deal cannot be said by putting up a

few extra cherries in the Brexit

cake. This speech did not persuade

him that is a deal to be done.

He is

not in charge of the negotiations.

Michel Barnier did not seem terribly

impressed. Are they going to accept

the Prime Minister's view that you

can accept different access for

different sectors?

Let's wait and

see. Michel Barnier welcome the

speech. There is lots of posturing.

It is invading tress and hours to

arrive at a deal that is very

similar to that which the Prime

Minister set on Friday.

You're being

very positive about with the EU is

likely to do. They may well not do

that. Is there a point at which the

Prime Minister may be forced to walk

away because they will not meet

halfway?

I hope not but if you go

into any negotiations in, I want to

deal at any price, you will be taken

to the cleaners. That is true of

every negotiation. I agree with the

Prime Minister when she says that in

the ultimate circumstance, no deal

is better than a bad deal, but I do

not think we're going to have a bad

deal, I think we're going to have a

deal along the lines the Prime

Minister set out on Friday.

She said

we are going to have to compromise

and we are not

and we are not going to get what we

want. We will have to meet someone

in the middle on this and the

response from the EU has not been to

say, we agree, let's talk about

compromise, it has to -- it has been

to maintain a lot of their hard

lines about cherry picking.

That

will change. Their approach to the

negotiations on the first stage

changed. All sorts of figures were

bandied about about the money we

would have to pay and they bore no

reality to the ultimate outcome. You

have to take these initial

negotiating positions with a pinch

of salt.

When the EU was negotiating

with Greece during its financial

crisis, they were absolutely

insistent, they did not soften their

lines.

No disrespect to Greece, but

we are not Greece. The European

Union needs access to our markets.

The European Union needs our money.

The situation is very, very

different from that which happened

between the EU and Greece.

Lord

Howard, thank you for talking to us

this morning.

As we've heard, Jeremy Corbyn

made his own big speech on Brexit

earlier in the week and he backed

a customs union.

So how would it work?

With me from Salford

is the Shadow Communities

Secretary, Andrew Gwynne.

Thank you very much for coming in to

speak to us today. We have got to

make a very different approaches.

Jeremy Corbyn at the beginning of

the week saying he wanted to stay in

a customs union, Theresa May on

Friday pretty much ruling it out. Is

it not Theresa May who is being

honest with the voters by laying out

the hard fact, as she puts it, that

we will have to accept we have less

access to the EU market?

Absolutely

not. That we are leaving the

European Union is decided. We had a

referendum, but the Thames by which

we leave the European Union is what

the negotiations are all about and

the Labour Party has always said it

would seek to maintain the benefits

of a customs union. In doing that,

we have set out our proposals for

what we think that new arrangement

should be, I bespoke agreement

between the EU in the UK that would

maintain the benefits of tariff free

trade between the UK and the

European Union going forward. But

one in which we are equal partners,

so we have a say on those new trade

deals that are being made and a half

of the new arrangements between our

two trading blocs.

That has never

happened with any other country that

has entered into a customs union

with the EU. Why do you think they

would give us an equal say, one of

us against 27 of them, when it came

to a negotiating a trade deal with

someone else somewhere else in the

world?

The EU is different trading

arrangements with different

countries.

It does and none of them

have a say in outside trade deals.

The difference here, as Lord Howard

said, we are the largest economy the

world. The European Union has

important trading links with the

United Kingdom, it is a two-way

process, and therefore it is in both

of interest that we strike a deal

that benefits both of us.

I do not

know what is happening on this

programme. You are agreeing with

Laura Taarabt, he's agreeing with

Nicky Morgan. It is a very unusual

morning.

You're all in the same

side. The difference is the

Conservatives have ruled out a

customs union, and we are saying

that a customs union is vital, not

least that we can give real

assurances that the Good Friday

Agreement and our treaty obligations

in the Good Friday Agreement are not

torn up. We do not want to lose the

advantage is that we have seen of 20

years of peace between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

If the EU says, you can remain in a

customs union but you do not get a

large say in future trade deals with

countries outside of the EU and you

just have to accept what is

negotiated by the EU 27, would you

still want to be in that customs

union?

We would have to look at that

carefully. We want to be a rule

maker

maker and not a real taker. It is

hard to do that if you stay in a

customs union. Unless you have a new

arrangement whereby the United

Kingdom sits at the table when those

trade deals are being made. That is

the new arrangement that we seek to

make. We believe we would be in a

better position to make those

arrangements with the European Union

because we have approached the

Brexit negotiations in an entirely

different manner. We have said what

we would like to see in terms of

transitional arrangements, the

government subsequently followed on

a number of those issues, but all

along we have said that we want to

maintain the benefits of tariff free

custom free trade, and that is

absolutely crucial, not least for

the Northern Ireland issue.

One of

the things the Labour Party was

looking forward to have to Brexit,

and that Jeremy Corbyn has stressed,

was the freedom from state aid

rules, where the EU stops the UK

Government from giving financial

assistance to any particular sector

of industry. Theresa May spoke about

that on Friday and said it would be

necessary to sign up to the

directives on state aid and

procurement rules, to keep those EU

rules. Do you accept that will have

to happen?

No, and we have a different view

anyway. When it came to our

arguments the Government should step

in to assist the steel industry in

Britain, the Government used these

fallacies about state aid rules to

excuse themselves for not giving

adequate support to that industry.

We didn't believe in the

interpretation the Government made

because other European countries

have got round the so-called state

aid rules. We have said as part of

our negotiations, that is a red line

for us. We would want to make sure

we could facilitate state aid in a

number of areas where Labour Party

policies have been clearer about

supporting our industries.

If that

is a red line, is it more important

staying in the customs union, if you

have to make the choice? The EU

could say no customs union if you

insist on state aid.

We believe we

could get a bespoke arrangement for

a new customs relationship, a new

customs union.

I think there's a

name for that, isn't it called

cherry picking?

No because we

believe this is in the interests of

the UK and in the interests of the

European Union. 44% of our trade is

with the European Union, 53% of the

EU's trade is with the UK so it is

in both our interests that we sort

this out and get the best deal not

for the European Union but for

Britain outside of the European

Union.

You seem to be saying the

Tory government are asking for the

impossible in their negotiations and

won't get what they are looking for

but somehow if there was a Labour

government negotiating this deal,

all doors would open and you would

be able to select which bit of the

customs union you did and didn't

like and could have a bespoke deal

that is not available for some

reason to Theresa May.

They ruled

out a customs union, I think that is

a bad decision because I believe a

customs union, negotiated between

the UK and the European Union 27 is

in the best interests of sorting out

customs free tariff-free trade going

forward but also sorting out the

issue of the border between Ireland,

north and south.

Labour set out six

tests as to whether they would vote

for the Brexit deal in the end and

one of those was that it had to

deliver the same benefits we get

from being in the single market and

customs union. That was a quote from

David Davis, but Theresa May has

been clear we are not going to get

the same benefits. Does this mean

Labour under no circumstances will

be able to vote for any Brexit deal

that's been negotiated?

Let's see

what Brexit deal comes back before

we have a hypothetical vote on this.

You don't think there's any

circumstances in which it could come

back...

I believe if the Government

wanted to enter into negotiations to

do that, they could do that. The

fact the Prime Minister has conceded

is probably because they have ruled

out a customs union. We believe that

is the wrong decision, we believe

that arrangement is possible, but

let's see what the Government comes

back with and then we will decide

how we vote in parliament.

Parliament has got a meaningful vote

and that was something that had to

be secured through the parliamentary

processes. The Government weren't

going to give us that right and I

think it is right it is ultimately

Parliament that decides.

Thank you.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come...

As the government promises to cut

red tape to get more houses built,

we'll ask the Cabinet Office

minister David Lidington

whether they're finally prepared

to take on the nimbys.

First though, it's

time for the Sunday Politics

where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

With me for the duration

today, Andy Slaughter,

Labour MP for Hammersmith,

and Chris Philp, Conservative

MP for Croydon South.

Welcome to both of you.

I want to start with

the latest on Brexit.

On Friday, the Prime Minister

made her latest keynote

speech on leaving the EU,

whilst the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, earlier in the week

announced Labour's new position

on the Customs Union.

First of all though, Chris Philp,

the Prime Minister says

there will be less access

to the single market

than we had before.

Is that a good thing for business?

I think it's a realistic

assessment of where we are,

given we are leaving

the European Union.

I thought the speech was very

good, it was balanced.

It recognised that we couldn't

continue having the same level

of access as now because if

we did we effectively

wouldn't be leaving.

Right, so why did the Brexit

Secretary say we will have

the exact same benefits of leaving

the EU as we had when we were

in the single market?

I think what the Brexit Secretary

meant and what the Prime Minister

said in her speech last week

was that we are going to have a deep

and special trade relationship.

We are going to be signing up

to broadly common standards.

That's a critical thing to say

because it means we can trade freely

if we accept our regulatory

standards are going to be broadly

equivalent of the European Union's.

Broadly equivalent but not as high.

No, certainly not as high.

In fact she said in some areas

like workers' rights,

environmental standards,

she would expect UK standards to be

even higher than European standards

as they currently are.

But the point is they won't be

identical, they're going

to be broadly equivalent

with an independent body,

not the ECJ, deciding

whether they are equivalent or not.

And that means we can

continue to trade freely

and that's very important.

I mean it was a reality check

for Brexiteers, wasn't it?

The ECJ, the European Court

of Justice, will still arbitrate

over certain things,

we will still be signed up to some

of the key European agencies.

It was a realistic approach,

as you said, because the UK

Government has realised they can't

get what they want.

I don't think the European Court

of Justice will be arbitrating.

I think its judgments will have some

influence in some of the bodies

that we are still part of.

It was a balanced and realistic

speech that lays the foundations

for a really good free trade deal

and I'm delighted she made it.

And do you accept that?

It's just chaotic, isn't it?

In what way?

We are not that much further forward

because Theresa May can't

commit herself absolutely

because she will...

One faction in her party,

either the pro-Brexit extremists

or the Remainers will suddenly say

that's it, so she has

to keep the show going.

But she'll say on the one hand

we are not going to sign up to any

of those terrible things

like the customs union

and single market,

but on the other hand I want us

to have the best possible

deal that's going.

What has Labour promised

your constituents?

I mean will your constituents say

that Labour has a better policy

in terms of its promises

of the customs union?

Absolutely.

My constituents I think know that,

which is probably why my majority

trebled at the last election.

But they don't want to be part

of the single market, do they?

Jeremy moved the party

significantly, Jeremy's speech

was significant last week because it

committed us to the customs union.

Out of the customs union.

There's very little

difference between those two.

What he says is that we want

to replicate the customs union

and as far as possible the single

market as well.

Those are significant moves

in the direction of travel,

which the party is going on.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn will sign

up to a single market membership?

I think it's possible

that we will move further as time

goes on but the indications he has

given so far we want to maintain

the advantages that we had

as members of the EU.

But you can't have

your cake and eat it.

You can't both retain

all of the advantages and also

at the same time leave.

You must feel a bit sore

because he fired you,

didn't he, about a year ago.

You were sacked?

For advocating customs

union membership.

I don't feel sore about it,

I'm delighted that we are now

advocating that policy.

Yes, but on the basis that

you wanted single market membership

and he said you can no longer be

part of the team.

The job that I think Keir Starmer

and Jeremy are doing

is in recognising that

if we want to be a successful

trading country, we are going

to have to stay on the closest

possible terms with the EU

and they are making

pragmatic decisions.

What you get with Theresa May

is just bones thrown

to these lunatic fringe,

the Rees-Moggites and so forth,

just to say we are still going to be

a hard Brexit, anti-European party

while admitting that...

Let's talk about the City

of London because the City

of London financial services,

an important part of the economy,

and Theresa May said we are not

looking for passporting

because we understand this

is intrinsic to the single market

of which we would no

longer be a member.

It would also require us to be

subject to a single rule book over

which we would have no say.

That's going to be very

damaging, isn't it?

But if you read the very next

paragraph in the speech,

which I'm sure we both have,

she goes on to say that we

would commit to having

regulatory standards that

were of equivalent levels.

If that's acceptable to the EU.

I don't see why it wouldn't be

because they book over

half their debt and equity issuance

in London so they really would be

cutting off their nose

to spite their faces.

How would that be the same

as passporting, which the City

of London has now?

It would give us financial services

access providing that an independent

body found that our regulatory

standards were of a equivalent

standard broadly to the Europeans,

which we would expect them to be,

because in many ways our regulatory

standards are higher.

So that is passporting, isn't it?

It gives you market access

without having to be part

of the single market and signing up

to the last dot and comma

of every single last rule.

But I must say, I think

Andy's characterisation

a moment ago of the speech,

of sort of throwing bones to Jacob,

and by the way I don't

think he eats bones.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, this is.

Was rather unfair because I thought

this speech, if you read it

carefully, is very realistic and it

recognises where we need to make

concessions and it recognises

where the European Union does.

I think it was actually very

realistic and balanced,

and I think will provide

the foundations for a sensible

free-trade deal that

works for them and us.

Chris, you have to say that.

You were a Remainer and I suspect

you recognise this is all nonsense.

What we have done, if we have

rejected the advantages we had

of being in the EU and now

we are trying to sign up

to second-best versions of them...

But people voted to leave,

Andy Slaughter, didn't they,

and the point is one

of your colleagues, Frank Field,

said people like you have ratted

and are ratting on Labour leaders.

said people like you have ratted

and are ratting on Labour leavers.

Frank Field is one of half a dozen

Labour MPs who doesn't agree

with the direction of travel

the Labour Party has.

The Labour Party is actually very

united on this issue.

Theresa May has two problems.

One is how does she square leaving

the EU with the economic

success of the country,

but she's got that additional

problem that all Tory leaders have

had back to John Major which is how

do we reconcile the irreconcilable

Ken Clarke and Rees-Mogg?

Let's leave it there.

Westminster is regarded as the jewel

in the crown of local

government in London.

The Conservatives have been in power

there for as long as the City

of Westminster has existed

in its current form.

The opposition claim

the council is out of touch

and in hock to the privileged,

but they're now hitting back

with a policy to raise

money from the rich.

Will that be enough to save them

from the predicted Labour

upsurge in inner London?

Tanjil Rashid reports.

Westminster has some pretty

well-to-do residents.

The Queen, for one.

But it's not all swans

and stucco fronted terraces.

It has the highest number of rough

sleepers in the country,

one of whom recently died

yards from Parliament.

The city of Westminster has long

been divided with a diverse

population and a large number

of council estates.

The north tends to vote Labour and

returns the Labour MP to Parliament.

But then you have the rather more

affluent Tory leaning South

and the council as a whole has been

Conservative run since 1964.

If Labour want to take control here,

as some polling indicates may

happen, they need to win

in places like this.

Both the election results last year

but also the polling done since then

shows a really dramatic shift

to Labour, particularly

in inner London.

So the last bit of polling done show

a 13-point swing to Labour in inner

London and that is of the scale that

will enable Labour potentially

to take councils like

Wandsworth and Westminster.

If they manage to crack Westminster,

something seismic is happening

in British politics.

The Labour team are hoping

to capitalise on local

opposition to Brexit.

They are fielding an EU

citizen as a candidate.

Well, I meet other EU nationals

all the time when I'm campaigning

and you see that they are very,

very concerned about Brexit.

I think there's also

the anger over Grenfell,

which is round the corner from here.

There are people who previously

voted Conservative who are fed up

with Brexit, fed up with the hard

right Tory agenda nationally

and want to see something

at a local level that

represents their interests

more directly.

In order to win, they do need

to double the number

of councillors they have.

Labour currently have

15 to the Tories' 45.

The swing that's been projected

would be enough but the Conservative

leader of the council

believes her party

will weather the storm.

On the doorstep, we are being told

that they are voting

Conservative in Westminster.

They may vote for Labour

in the national elections

but many of them tell us in local

elections they vote for us.

And she has an eye-catching

policy to raise funds

from Westminster's wealthy.

Over the last couple of years,

wealthier residents have

asked us consistently,

why don't you put up

the council tax?

So this new voluntary

contribution asks those in

band H to pay a bit more,

consider paying a bit more.

Their council tax bill

for next year will be £833.

We are suggesting another £833.

Some of those targeted by the scheme

don't think it's a reliable way

to fund the council.

The voluntary contribution,

whilst very worthwhile,

doesn't necessarily give the council

any surety as to how much

money they will have.

It relies on goodwill

and being reliant on goodwill

is a little bit like a coconut shy

at the fairground.

You don't know whether you are going

to win that coconut or you're

not going to win it.

D'Hoore is

The scheme will be confirmed

by the council this week,

The scheme will be confirmed

by the council

is this week,

and come the election in May,

we will see whether or not

it is enough for Westminster to buck

the trend and remain in Tory hands.

That was Tanjil Rashid reporting.

The policy wonks there are saying

there is a 13% inner

London swing to Labour.

Were we to see that,

that would be enough

for Labour to take Westminster

for the first time.

How worried are you?

I think we have all seen how

accurate opinion polls

are the last election,

and at the referendum.

So you do not believe them?

Let's wait until the election

actually happens but I think

Westminster City Council

have an incredibly strong story.

They charge the lowest band D

council tax in the country,

it is less than half their immediate

neighbour, Labour-controlled

Camden, and yet their

services are excellent.

So why are Labour doing so well?

We do not know they

are doing so well.

They collect the bins twice

a week in Westminster.

In Croydon, my borough, Labour run,

bin collections have been cut.

They have the highest social

mobility in the country,

their children's services are rated

outstanding by Ofsted,

whereas in Croydon, the Labour

run borough I am from,

the children's services have been

found to be dangerous.

You're giving me a list

of what you see as the achievements

of the council but we've just heard

there, you may say, we cannot

believe the polls but look

what happened in the general

election, in terms of Jeremy Corbyn

and the Labour Party doing better

than people thought.

So I say to you again,

the last time this was a marginal

area, you have to go back

to Shirley Porter and the homes

for votes scandal.

So what is happening?

Andy Slaughter alluded to it.

Clearly in the general election,

a national election,

there were significant challenges

for the Conservatives,

especially in inner London but this

is a local election,

it is about local issues,

and Westminster Council,

in common with Wandsworth and other

Conservative councils,

do a fantastic job delivering

excellent services for low tax,

unlike Labour run councils,

like Croydon, where I am from,

who do a terrible job,

in things like children's services

and collecting rubbish

while charging exorbitantly

high council tax.

There would still have

to be an enormous swing.

It may be great publicity to say

that Labour may take the scalp

of a council that you have never

held in recent time,

but it is actually unrealistic?

I note the desperation

in Chris's voice.

And the fact that Labour is trying

to win Westminster very seriously,

which it is, and it has great

representation, a fantastic MP

in Karen Buck, great opposition

there, but you're right,

it is a very big ask,

because you're asking them to go

from having a quarter of the seats

to winning, but there is a chance,

but it will take a lot of work

and a big turnout from voters,

like the EU voters,

we heard from them,

but also from people who...

I'm sorry, but Chris absolutely gets

it wrong about Westminster.

It is a terrible council,

it has the sixth highest child

poverty in the country.

People think it is a wealthy area,

it is not, and yet they have taken

£10 million in the last two years

out of children's services.

But as you say, still unrealistic

for Labour to actually win it.

Could you sit here today and say,

we are going to win that?

You are very stupid to predict

the results of elections.

People were not predicting that

Labour would take Hammersmith three

years ago and we did.

We're the only council since then

to actually cut council tax

during that time in London.

I hope we will win again

on our record, but the Tory record

in Westminster is terrible,

particularly on housing,

one of the worst achieving councils

in terms of providing affordable

housing in London.

How do you judge this policy

from the leader of the council

who is asking the richest residents

to pitch in with a voluntary tax?

Do you support that?

This is more desperate,

amateur stuff.

You cannot run government

on the basis of charity.

The real crisis in local government

is because every council had

at least a third of its budget cut

by the cuts in central government.

During the austerity period,

central government rather cowardly

chose to cut local government rather

than cutting some

of its own services.

Is this just a gimmick?

Would you like your richest

constituents to pay around £850

a year more, donated

to council coffers?

I am always in favour

of trying new things.

You have got to be flexibly minded.

That is a no.

Let's give it a try.

I would be perfectly happy

for Croydon Council to do that.

The Conservatives on Croydon Council

have proposed exactly this measure

but take Westminster as an example.

On housing, which Andrew mentioned,

we've got 415 homeless places,

overnight shelter places

in Westminster, the

highest in the country.

There are seven teams of people

going around every night

in Westminster actively trying

to help homeless people so I think

Westminster has a proud record

of delivering great services for low

council tax and that is why

they deserve to get re-elected

because that is what these

elections are about.

Why not just put up council tax?

This system which Andy Slaughter

has said is a gimmick,

really, it is a charity,

a charitable donation,

rather than setting up a new system,

why not put up council tax,

why don't you advise

Westminster to do that?

It is up to Westminster to set

their own level of council tax.

Would that be better?

If they felt they absolutely needed

that money to run their services,

I am sure they would put

their council tax up,

but this is a voluntary measure

to provide additional services

and people can choose

whether to pay it.

A good idea for

the rich to pitch in?

Look, it is a joke.

You cannot run government

on the charity of individuals.

Street homelessness has gone up 140%

since the Tories got

back into government.

There are 2,500 families

in temporary accommodation

in Westminster.

It is a shambles and this

sort of gimmick is not

going to convince anybody.

Let's move on.

This week the Labour MP

for Bermondsey and Old Southwark,

Neil Coyle, wrote to EU citizens

in his constituency.

He urged them to regard the upcoming

local elections as a referendum

on the Prime Minister's handling

of the Brexit negotiations

and to vote for Labour accordingly.

Sebastien Ash has more.

Over one million EU citizens

in London are eligible to vote

in local council

elections on May the 3rd.

London's mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has called on them to,

send the Tory government the message

that we do not want their chaotic,

extreme hard-Brexit approach.

And in a letter targeted at EU

citizens in his constituency,

Labour MP for Bermondsey

and Old Southwark, Neil Coyle,

has said, as someone

from an EU member state,

you have to vote in

the local elections.

This will be a major chance to send

Theresa May's government a clear

message about her disastrous Brexit

policy and how it affects

you and our whole community.

The party's commitment this week

to staying in a customs union

with the EU could win votes

in the capital, and with significant

EU populations in swing councils

like Wandsworth and Barnet,

their votes could make

all the difference, but the EU

citizens rights group

The3million have said,

the jury is out on Labour

because they supported Article 50.

Joining me now, Costanza de Toma,

from the organisation The3million,

which lobbies on behalf

of EU citizens rights.

You say Labour cannot be trusted,

so who are you advocating EU

citizens should vote for?

Well, the key thing to say is

I think we would like EU nationals

to vote first and foremost.

We're not telling anybody

who to vote for, but we are talking

to our members, to our fellow EU

nationals, to be active citizens,

so to keep councillors accountable,

to make them accountable to us,

as they would to any

other constituents.

So we are equipping them

with questions to ask

when they are being canvassed

at their doorstep.

Do you get a sense that this

will be a referendum

on Brexit, these elections?

Well, of course it will,

but it is not about whether you're

for or against Brexit.

The3million, for instance,

does not itself take

a position on Brexit.

We are here to safeguard

citizens rights.

If there is a Tory run council that

will provide excellent services,

information services,

outreach, and to register

all EU nationals, then

why not support that?

What is the mood music coming back

from the members you have spoken to?

Well, there is a certain level

of distrust in the current

government, I have to say.

But equally, I think we have

heard a lot of noise,

we have heard lots of reassurances,

but they have been

empty reassurances.

What we need is actions, and we need

actions at the local level.

We're talking about local

elections and luckily

we have a vote at the local level.

What is this distrust based

on in terms of EU citizens' rights

because the government and no doubt

Chris Philp would say that those

rights are going to be guaranteed,

and even during the implementation

and transition period,

that now they will have

indefinite leave to remain,

although other rights may change?

Well, exactly.

The devil is in the detail.

We will not be keeping the same

rights that we have now.

And what the government has proposed

is a lesser immigration

status with fewer rights.

She's just being realistic,

Costanza, saying that there

is a level of mistrust

in the government and that is hardly

surprising based on past rhetoric?

Let's start with the local question.

She asked about what local

councils are doing.

Westminster City Council,

that we were just discussing,

are running an outreach event

tomorrow, Monday, which EU nationals

are invited to where they can

have all of their rights

and the processes explained.

They are already doing

in Westminster, a Conservative

controlled council, an enormous

programme of outreach,

exactly as you have just requested.

What about the level of trust?

I hope that will be recognised.

As far as the wider national

rights are concerned,

at the stage one agreement

on the 8th of December,

the Prime Minister and

the European Union made it clear

that European citizens

here would have the right to stay,

obviously, and after five years

living here would be able to get

settled status and after ten years

become full citizens.

Those people would also

have the right to bring over

close family members,

so that is a generous offer

which shows that we really do want

European Union citizens to stay

here and continue making

the phenomenal contribution

they have been making for the last

ten, 20 or 30 years.

Does that convince you?

It is in black and white,

in the agreement.

I am afraid it does not.

It is less than what we have

now, and it is not in

black and white yet.

The logic of your argument

is that your members are more

likely to vote for Labour,

as many other Londoners?

No, I would not say so.

We have not heard reassurances

from Labour either.

There have been very unfortunate

votes on our rights in the Commons

and Labour have not supported

citizens' rights, and to be honest,

remaining in a customs union

would make no difference

to freedom of movement.

That is the point.

Labour cannot be trusted

on this issue either,

because they have been very opaque.

There has been a move in terms

of saying we would be part

of a customs union if Labour

was the government but

in every other sense,

you voted to leave the EU?

I think The3million are doing a very

good job and it is right to be

evenhanded and encourage people

to vote, that is the

first important thing.

Labour are not doing any more for EU

citizens than the Tories?

Absolutely not and this is the thing

that most animates me

about the whole Brexit debate,

more than one in five

of my voters is an EU citizen.

I speak to many of them every

week, knocking on doors.

They are very, very upset,

traumatised I would say,

about the fact they're being treated

as second-class citizens, and they

feel they do not have a future.

Give me examples of how they feel

like they are treated

like second-class citizens?

Well, what we have

just talked about.

Settled status is not the same

as the rights they have now.

You're talking about

the transition period?

People who arrive after March 2019?

No, settled status.

This is part of the confusion.

There are going to be at least five

different types of rights you have.

You might be waiting

to acquire settled status,

have settled status.

In the transition period,

we now find out, contrary

to what Theresa May led us

to believe, you will not

have the right to settled status,

you will have the right

to indefinite leave

to remain after a period.

I barely understand this.

Most of the people I am talking

to do not understand it and they're

being treated in an appalling way

by this government.

That is why I think that

people will remember that

when they go and vote in May

because this is not...

Can you imagine treating

any other national group

or ethnic group like this?

Are you on a sticky wicket

in London, which is seen as a Remain

city, on the basis of what Costanza

has said and listening

to Andy Slaughter, this

is going to be extremely difficult

in these local elections?

We're not on a sticky wicket.

Andy and we saw the letter

from Neil Coyle, they are attempting

to scaremonger to win votes

at the May election

but the truth is European Union

citizens are welcome here.

We want them to stay.

Empty words.

Let me finish.

There is a very clear path

to acquiring not just permanent

right to stay but full British

citizenship, which we expect

the vast majority of

European Union citizens to do.

They're welcome to stay here,

we're making it easy to stay,

and they will continue making

a massive contribution

and it is in black and white,

it is in the agreement on the 8th

December, it is in the draft

withdrawal agreement, 117 pages

published by the European Commission

last Wednesday, it is there

in black and white.

All right.

We are going to have

to finish it there.

Costanza, thank you very

much for coming in.

That's all we've got time

for for the London part of the show.

My thanks to you for

being my guests today.

Bye-bye.

welcome back.

So how about a bit of

a break from Brexit?

This morning the government

announced new plans to make it

easier for more houses to be built,

with rules to cut red

tape so that there can

be more homes in areas

where they are needed the most.

The government says they will take

on what they call the "Nimby

councils" who don't build enough.

However, their problem is that a lot

of these councils are Conservative.

So could we be about to see

a battle between local

and central government?

With me now with hopefully

all the answers is Cabinet Office

Minister David Lidington.